Additional Libertarian Party Platform Modification Movements
In addition to the newly formed Restore ‘04 Caucus, which hopes to restore the 2004 version of the Libertarian Party platform, there are other organized groups which hope to implement significant platform changes at the upcoming Libertarian National Convention.
We’ll start with Thomas Knapp’s World’s Smallest Political Platform first, as it is the easiest to cut-and-paste: “[Name of organization] supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.”
Personally, I like the wording and find it superior to L. Neil Smith’s Zero Aggression Principal as a definition of libertarianism. The problem is that it isn’t a platform as most Americans would recognize one. Knapp’s suggestion might become an ideal Purpose Statement, or even serve as a supporting mechanism for individual platform planks—but it fails, in my opinion, in that it doesn’t easily address (for the average voter, as opposed to libertarian philosopher kings) Libertarian positions on specific issues of relevance to most voters. My opinion is that most voters don’t spend much time thinking critically about electoral issues, and here’s some evidence to support my view. Of course, Knapp is welcome to rebut my observation in this or any other forum of his choosing.
A second general alternative to the Restore ‘04 platform comes from Brian Holtz, who sits on the steering committee of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. He is promoting what he calls the Greatest Hits Platform, which is described as follows:
Medium platform format which uses language from earlier versions of the LP Platform. The goals are to declare our common ground instead of our battle lines, to use timeless statements of principle that are consistent with both incremental reform and radical ultimate goals, and to avoid new phrasing in favor of language from current and prior platforms, including the original 1972 Denver Platform.
Holtz has a detailed Wiki of the Greatest Hits Plaform available here. The Wiki is color coded in order to tell from which platform version any particular statement is derived.
In some cases, it provides the ability for convention delegates to assume a certain controversial position, such as this example with the abortion issue:
1.3. Sexuality and Reproduction
Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. We oppose all coercive measures for population control.The full PlatCom should choose one of:
- [Say nothing more than the above.]
- We recognize that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people’s abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion.
- Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people’s abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion.
- We support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.
- While Libertarians have good-faith differences on this issue, a majority of us believe that a fetus starts deserving legal protection sometime after the first trimester and before birth. We support the right to terminate one’s pregnancy during the first trimester. We do not oppose requirements that ending a pregnancy in the third trimester must leave a healthy fetus alive if that is feasible.
One potential problem with Holtz’s approach is that it still includes that pesky “omnipotent state” clause in the Statement of Principles. This statement has proven unpopular with an overwhelming number of LP delegates, but the party has never been able to raise 7/8ths of the votes required to modify this phrase. The Bylaws Committee is working on a procedural mechanism to make this easier to change, but it appears they may be overreaching so much (with respect to issues pertaining to anarchism) to accomplish their goal. Starchild and Holtz have provided alternate versions of the Statement of Principles, too.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Wow … I didn’t realize how easy it would be to so radically misinterpret the purpose of one sentence. The World’s Smallest Political Platform is not in any way, shape, manner or form intended to be a “definition of libertarianism.”
The WSPP is, precisely per definition, a platform: It (per wikipedia) it is a “list of the principles which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party’s candidates voted into office. ... tak[ing the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics.”
The WSPP supports one controversial topic (reducing the size, power and scope of government) and opposes another controversial topic (increasing the size, power or scope of government). It implicitly covers each and every prescription offered in the LP’s 2004 platform, the LP’s 2006 platform, and Brian Holtz’s “Greatest Hits Draft” platform. The difference between the platforms is this:
– The “Greatest Hits Draft” platform, when pasted into my Microsoft Word window, runs to six pages.
– The 2006 LP platform, , when pasted into my Microsoft Word window, runs to 11 pages.
– The 2004 LP platform , when pasted into my Microsoft Word window, runs to 63 pages.
– I don’t have to paste the WSPP into an MS Word window to tell you how long it is: Its operant language, exclusive of the name of the organization adopting it, is 33 words. It is readable or verbalizable, AND UNDERSTANDABLE, in about 10 seconds, assuming a 3- or 4-word organizational name.
I’m positively confounded by the argument that the WSPP “it doesn’t easily address (for the average voter, as opposed to libertarian philosopher kings) Libertarian positions on specific issues of relevance to most voters.”
The WSPP addresses every political issue of any possible importance with the same prescription:
[Insert Question/Issue here]:
WSPP answer: “Reduce the size, power and scope of government. Don’t increase the size, power or scope of government.”
This is exactly the same answer in terms of essential content that you’ll get from the 2004 LP platform, the 2006 LP platform, or the “Greatest Hits Draft” platform—but none of those three will fit readably on a business card or with time to spare in a 30-, or even 15-second, TV or radio commercial.
Best regards,
Tom Knapp
December 27th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Eric Dondero might take your platform to suggest that Rudy should be the greatest libertarian president because he wishes to reduce the scope of Islamo-Fascist government.
I’d argue that simple things such as “we is fer the Second Amendment” or “we is agginst the Second Amendment” are helpful to many people.
With respect to a definition of libertarianism, I’m not stating that it was your purpose, but it is one possible result.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The constant framing of libertarians as opposing increases in the “size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose” does our movement a disservice, IMHO. It paints a picture of our movement as one which would get rid of all laws, both good and bad. It makes us seem to outsiders as those who would completely dismantle civilization.
I know several people who believe that libertarians want a Mad-Max-like world in which there are no authorities, and noone to turn to if someone transgresses against your property – just your shotgun. I can see why they think that, judging from the radical “elminate government” rhetoric which comes from the libertarian world.
The reality is that many of us would actually strengthen laws against murder, theft, and fraud, should we find them to be insufficient. Many of us would end the war on drugs so that police resources could be directed toward fighting actual crimes like rape, murder, theft, and assault. Those are crimes against life, liberty, and property, and as such it is a proper role of government to combat them*.
Too often I think we talk about the 90% of government we would get rid of. IMHO, we need to spend more time talking about the 10% of government we would keep (police, courts, etc.) and how it would be strengthened by the elimination of all the wasteful, unnecessary agencies.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I am not nearly as impressed with Brian Holtz’s platform as he is. It seems poorly written and addresses too many non-issues. For example, is forced abortion an issue? I don’t know of any government mandated abortions or proposals for that. Most libertarians would probably be against the government forcing people to have nipple rings, but should that be part of a platform?
I like the WSPP, but I think it would be hard to sell to the LP. While it could serve as a stand-alone platform, candidates would have to develop a program of specific proposals that they seek to legislate. There should be a requirement for this in the by-laws.
The LP might also benefit from a brief statement of principles to compliment the WSPP. One problem is that a candidate who only proposed closing the Federal Bureau of Gay Snails and a tax cut of $10 a year would be in compliance with the platform.
The WSPP might also attract a glut of kooks even kookier than the kookiest current LP members who may think the government is wonderful just as it is except maybe the food portions at Gitmo should be reduced. To them, any proposal more radical than that should be shunned.
Instead of a statement of principles, a motto could be adopted. I suggest borrowing an idea from a position paper of a more obscure political party for a motto: “We mind our own fucking business”.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Personally, I like the wording and find it superior to L. Neil Smith’s Zero Aggression Principal as a definition of libertarianism.
I think aggressive principals are a big problem. Something needs to be done.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Why doesn’t the LP build a platform based on the Bill of Rights, providing official, policy-based “2007 interpretations” for each amendment? That would disabuse people of the notion that the LP candidates are anarchists who want to shut down the government. It would become clear that the LP is just a group that takes constitutionally protected civil liberties VERY seriously.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
it appears they may be overreaching so much (with respect to issues pertaining to anarchism) to accomplish their goal.
Yes, I agree.
And besides, have you had an aggressive principal chase you around with a board of education? We can’t allow such things in the LP.
I’d argue that simple things such as “we is fer the Second Amendment” or “we is agginst the Second Amendment” are helpful to many people.
That seems to be the thinking behind Restore04 as well.
we need to spend more time talking about the 10% of government we would keep
Except that many of us don’t want to keep any of that.
But I don’t consider that to be libertarianism. I think of libertarianism as minarchism.
Time to expand your thinking.
I am not nearly as impressed with Brian Holtz’s platform as he is. It seems poorly written and addresses too many non-issues. For example, is forced abortion an issue? I don’t know of any government mandated abortions or proposals for that. Most libertarians would probably be against the government forcing people to have nipple rings, but should that be part of a platform?
No. You are correct about the “Greatest Hits.”
One problem is that a candidate who only proposed closing the Federal Bureau of Gay Snails and a tax cut of $10 a year would be in compliance with the platform.
The WSPP might also attract a glut of kooks even kookier than the kookiest current LP members who may think the government is wonderful just as it is except maybe the food portions at Gitmo should be reduced. To them, any proposal more radical than that should be shunned.
Correct again.
I suggest borrowing an idea from a position paper of a more obscure political party for a motto: “We mind our own fucking business”.
That would be fucking awesome, but those motherfucking cocksuckers at the FCC won’t let you say that on fucking TV, or even on the shit-eating radio for that matter. And what kind of a dick-for-brains party would stick its head up its asshole by having a god damned motto that the sorry bastards will bleep every time it airs? Those cunts over in the mainstream newspapers and magazines won’t even print that shit. It sucks balls, but we might have to go with a motto without any curse words in it for now.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Tom (Knapp), the GH draft fits in 2 pages if you just omit the subsection headings: http://marketliberal.org/LP/Docs/GHPamphlet.pdf
Your WSPP has significantly smaller scope than the GH draft. The following are issues that the GH addresses that the WSPP does not:
* fetal (non)personhood
* the rights of parents and children
* whether restitution is a proper goal of a justice system
* clarifying that (contra ZAP fan Starchild’s opinion on free speech in malls which he claims are quasi-governments) “freedom of communication does not extend to the use of other people’s property to promote one’s ideas without the voluntary consent of the owners”
* the legitimacy of defending oneself and those who request it
* the positive requirement that the government protect our rights
* restitution (perhaps assisted by government) of stolen property to rightful owners
* clarifying that pollution is aggression
* clarifying that unowned resources may be homesteaded
* defending the practice of incorporation
* positive assertion of the government’s purpose to defend the nation
* opposing government discrimination even when it makes government smaller
(You should make up your mind whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul on that last one.) Most importantly, the GH is a positive and comprehensive assertion of individual rights and the government’s proper role in protecting them, rather than merely being a pledge that government operations should be monotonically reduced at some unspecified pace.
For a list of 19 families of free variables in libertarian theory on which the WSPP is silent, see http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/varieties-of-principled-libertarianism.html. Despite the vaunted comprehensiveness of the pre-Portland LP Platform, it and other LP Platforms historically (and thus the GH draft derived from them) only addressed about half of those variables. Even more of those variables are addressed by Prof. Fred Foldvary’s Geo-Libertarian Constitution and Bill of Rights: http://www.progress.org/2007/fold523.htm .
Tom (Blanton), the Greatest Hits draft has been shaped by over half a dozen people, and about that many members of PlatCom have expressed support for it—more than for any other past or prospective LP Platform. As for its writing, every sentence comes from prior Platforms, and the majority of them were in the 2004 Platform, so when you criticize the GH’s writing you’re criticizing the writing that you’ve petitioned us on PlatCom to reinstate. As for “forced abortion”, the language in question is straight out of your 2004 Platform, so it sounds like you’re simply ignorant of what you’ve petitioned the PlatCom to do. In particular, you probably aren’t aware that the LP’s absolutist pro-choice language has been traditionally mated with Henry-Hyde-style language prohibiting government promotion of abortion, with the obvious intent to throw a bone to the LP’s pro-lifers. It’s silly for you to suggest that nipple rings are anywhere near as schismatic an issue for the LP as abortion is. You continue: “The LP might also benefit from a brief statement of principles to compliment the WSPP.” You seem unaware that the LP Statement of Principles is a virtually unmodifiable and irremovable part of the LP Platform—one that hasn’t changed since 1974 and is certain to hardly change (or not change at all) in Denver. So much for the Restoration Caucus’s understanding of what they call “a document that evolved over three decades and incorporated the thinking of thousands of dedicated Libertarians”...
Stephen, I eagerly support the Bylaws Committee’s proposal to change the SoP “omnipotent/cult” language, and in fact I don’t know of anybody who proposed the “challenge all aggression” phrasing before I did in October. Changing the SoP is outside the scope of the GH draft, but I hope and expect that the PlatCom will formally endorse that SoP change. If you want to know how I would re-write the SoP, see the Knapp-endorsed version I wrote at http://libertarianmajority.net/marketliberalagenda .
December 28th, 2007 at 12:37 am
I said: we need to spend more time talking about the 10% of government we would keep. (I was referring to core, proper government functions such as courts and police protection of life, liberty, and property.)
Jacob K said: Except that many of us don’t want to keep any of that.
That is the main reason why many non-libertarians think libertarians are insane.
For what it’s worth, I believe there’s a good chance we will eventually have markets in police protection and adjutication. But, that’s still some seriously theoretical, far out shit. The fact that we’re even having this discussion in a thread about the LP platform is ridiculous.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Brian:
It appeared to me when looking at the history of the “Greatest Hits” wiki that every edit was made by Brian Holtz – I guess i just missed the inclusion of over a half dozen unidentified people. Nope, I looked again – just Brian Holtz.
It seems you may be simply ignorant of what the petition I signed says, Brian. I’ll remind you that it begins as follows:
“In making this request, I am not saying that every word in every plank of the 2004 Platform was perfect and should be retained intact, exactly as it was worded at the end of the 2004 Convention.”
Of course, any nipple ring language would be silly – but not much sillier than the non-issue of forced abortions (as if that is a big part of the abortion issue).
I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings about your “Greatest Hits”, but I do think it is poorly written. That is not to say I think you wrote it. Some of it is redundant. For example:
“We call for the abolition of government agencies that restrict entry into any profession. No consumer should be legally restrained from hiring unlicensed individuals.”
The second sentence is not necessary. In fact, government does not restrain consumers from hiring unlicensed individuals – it restrains unlicensed individuals from offering their services in the marketplace.
There are other parts where the language could be clearer.
Oh, and maybe it just isn’t snarky enough, either.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Matt asks: “Why doesn’t the LP build a platform based on the Bill of Rights…?”
Because, Matt, the LP is not the Constitution Party.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Susan, I’m not suggesting that a “literal interpretation of the constitution” would be the pinnacle of liberty or anything like that. It isn’t that, of course.
What I am suggesting is that using the Bill of Rights as a jumping-off point would be a good way to communicate how ideologically pure libertarianism fits into the context of history, and it’s a great way to turn newcomers onto the party.
People who dismiss libertarians as being crazy nutjobs might lose their stomach for doing so when they see a platform based on the Bill of Rights.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Brian,
You write:
“Tom (Knapp), the GH draft fits in 2 pages if you just omit the subsection headings: http://marketliberal.org/LP/Docs/GHPamphlet.pdf”
If you say so. I took the GH draft (omitting the top portion that describes which font colors designate which original source), the 2004 platform, and the 2006 platform, and pasted them each into an MS Word window to get relative sizes, so they are to scale with each other. The WSPP is in a class by itself in that respect, since it doesn’t come close to filling one page at 12 points. It could be printed on a business card at 12 points. It could probably be enlarged and still fit on a coffee mug.
Obviously there are arguments in favor of “shorter” or “longer,” but to the extent that “shorter” is a priority for someone, the WSPP is, so far as I know, the leading competitor.
“Your WSPP has significantly smaller scope than the GH draft. The following are issues that the GH addresses that the WSPP does not”
You say that like it’s a bad thing. What I find interesting here is that I’m a purist ideologue offering a big-tent, general operating prescription, and that you’re a moderate pragmatist countering me with an ideological laundry list.
“(You should make up your mind whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul on [opposing government discrimination even when it makes government smaller]).”
I’m unaware of any case in which government discrimination makes government smaller.
If you’re talking about “don’t ask, don’t tell,” it makes government bigger. The armed forces do not reduce their tables of organization by one body every time they discharge a gay man or lesbian—they just add one to the next quarter’s recruitment quota. Ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” could, however, reduce the size of government by the number of bodies represented by the man hours spent investigating reports of homosexuality in the armed forces and acting on the results of those investigations.
“Most importantly, the GH is a positive and comprehensive assertion of individual rights and the government’s proper role in protecting them, rather than merely being a pledge that government operations should be monotonically reduced at some unspecified pace.”
Once again, you say that like it’s a bad thing.
The WSPP is designed to be attractive to anyone who wants smaller government. The GH draft is designed to be attractive to those people who want smaller government in particular areas for particular reasons. Which one is more “big tent?”
“For a list of 19 families of free variables in libertarian theory on which the WSPP is silent”
PRECISELY. The more free variables, the less ground available for agreement, said the radical ideologue to the pragmatic reformer.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
December 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Tom Blanton, you read the GH wiki history about as competently as you read the 2004 Platform. If you look at the comments, you’ll see my annotations about what person(s) suggested each change. Substantial changes have come from Alicia Mattson, Henry Haller, Guy McLendon, and Bob Capozzi, as well as (before the Wiki history) M Carling and John Shuey. If you want to excuse your ignorance about your preferred Platform’s language on abortion with the fig leaf of the petition’s asterisk about not endorsing its every word, then that flimsy excuse needs no rejoinder from me. Wake us when you address my point about why your preferred LP Platform addresses forced abortion but not forced nipple piercing. (Also, can you say “China”?)
The alleged redundancy you criticize in the GH is actually a condensed version of even-more-verbose language in your vaunted 2004 Platform, so your criticism here is another argument for the superiority of the GH over the 2004 Platform. As for the redundancy itself, note that there could be occupational licensing without the “agencies” that the 2004 Platform says should be abolished. The reason I imported both of those sentences is that the first defends the freedom of workers, and the second defends the freedom of those who hire them. I could indeed write a single sentence that makes both points more tersely, but there won’t be time enough during the floor debate in Denver for the delegates to audit every linguistic improvement I could make on the steaming pile of verbosity that was the pre-Portland LP Platform.
As for “hurting my feelings”, you need not apologize for things you lack the capacity to do.
Matt, the reason Hogarth rejects your idea about the Bill of Rights is that she and other LP radicals oppose part(s) of it. If you want to know which part(s), read the message that Hogarth censored from reaching the LP radicals list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/1799 . FYI to Susan: on Wednesday I got “radical” candidate Steve Kubby to say he favors the particular kind of force initiation I discuss in that message.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Among these three alternatives (‘04, GH, WSPP), as a delegate I will support Tom Knapp’s platform.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Steve,
You sugar coat things when you describe the “cult of the omnipotent state” clause as “pesky.” IMO, that clause is illiterate, hyperbolic, even loopy.
Cult is a very strong word. Surely there are statists among us, but in my travels I can’t say I’ve met anyone who is a “cultist” about government and all its current functions.
And omnipotent? All powerful? Was the SOP written by a comic book author, able to leap tall buildings?
-Bob
December 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Tom,
I believe that the Bill of Rights provides the framework for the way 90% of literate americans perceive their liberties. For that reason, I think it’d be the best way to present the philosophy of liberty to independent voters without turning them off.
Ms. Hogarth could, if she so chose, back up her distaste for part of the sixth amendment by pointing out how it could be said to violate the thirteenth (involuntary servitude). I don’t buy her case, but she could do it.
And if she did, she would get further. You can debate a platform based on the constitution without thinking the constitution is inerrant.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Robert,
I think the “cult of the omnipotent state” line is everything you said it was an imprecise to boot. Wouldn’t it be the cult of the allegedly omnipotent state? It reads as if we’re acknowledging that the state is omnipotent but just refusing to become cultish supporters of it, and that’s not exactly what it is supposed to mean.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Thanks for cluing me in Mr. Holtz. I had no idea the 2004 platform was my “preferred” and “vaunted” platform.
Consistent with the petition I signed, I thought this statement expressed how I felt about the 2004 platform:
“In making this request, I am not saying that every word in every plank of the 2004 Platform was perfect and should be retained intact, exactly as it was worded at the end of the 2004 Convention.”
But, I must have been wrong as Mr. Holtz has probed my deep innermost thoughts and determined my total infatuation with the 2004 platform as it existed.
Mr. Holtz asks:
“Wake us when you address my point about why your preferred LP Platform addresses forced abortion but not forced nipple piercing. (Also, can you say “China”?)”
The answer is yes, I can say China. Chiner. There, I said it. I just had no idea your “Greatest Hits” were to also serve as the platform for the Libertarian Party of China. It would seem that someone who holds such disdain for the 2004 platform would not copy and paste some of its worst elements and then get upset when someone criticizes language borrowed from said platform.
Please do me the favor, Mr. Holtz, of probing my mind and revealing to me how I really feel about your intellect and charm. If you don’t care to respond in this forum, you could just insert the words into my mouth.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Mr. Holtz, can you explain your statement:
“As for the redundancy itself, note that there could be occupational licensing without the “agencies” that the 2004 Platform says should be abolished.”
regarding the first sentence of this redundant item:
“We call for the abolition of government agencies that restrict entry into any profession. No consumer should be legally restrained from hiring unlicensed individuals.”
Please explain who would issue licenses if not a government agency and who would enforce any license requirement if not a government agency. If the government outsourced these functions to a private entity, that entity would be a agent of the government, or a government agency. Any issuance of licenses or license enforcement would certainly restrict entry into a profession.
But all this is much to do about nothing – mere quibbling.
The real point is that if you are going to write a platform, it should be clear, well written, and not redundant.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Don’t you just love the sound of those strong words as in “cult of the omnipotent state”? Doesn’t that just change the whole dynamic of any political conversation? I get a kick out of it when I see those police cars going by with their motto that says “to protect and serve”, especially when I remember that the Supremes have said that the police are not responsible when they fail to live up to that motto.
Never mind!
MHW
December 29th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Moulton jumped to the non-platform? The reformer dream is crushed. Will the last person supporting GH please turn out the lights?
December 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Morey,
Is there anything in the World’s Smallest Political Platform that you believe does not belong in a libertarian political platform? If so, what?
Is there anything you believe that a libertarian politcal party should do or stand for that the World’s Smallest Political Platform doesn’t allow a party adopting it to do or stand for?
According to Wikipedia, a platform “is a list of the principles which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party’s candidates voted into office.”
Wikipedia goes on to state that “[t]his often takes the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics.”
The WSPP meets both of those descriptive criteria. Therefore it is not a “non-platform,” but a platform. It may be a platform you don’t prefer, but there’s no reason to pretend that it’s not something it clearly is.
As far as support for Greatest Hits is concerned, I prefer it to the 2004 platform. I prefer WSPP, Greatest Hits or a 2004 restoration to the current platform, and regard the current platform as too corrupted to be “tweaked” into usability.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
December 29th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Mr Holtz may I suggest that you go back and review your Greatest Hits platform. You seem to have run a number of sentences together. You need to make better use of paragraphs and to begin with you should state your principle and then support it. You have a couple of different place throughout the document where you have placed a statement of principle. That doesn’t strike me as the best way to do this.
Perhaps the best platform ever written was, or is, the Declaration of Independence. And that it be used as an example of how one is to be written and be successful.
Maybe all of us need to keep that document in mind
Thank you,
Michael H. Wilson
December 31st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Knapp) I’m a purist ideologue offering a big-tent, general operating prescription, and that you’re a moderate pragmatist countering me with an ideological laundry list (Knapp
The elephantine laundry list in the room is the 2004 Platform that most leading radicals support. GH is a succinct set of Libertarian principles describing how the LP Statement of Principles applies to the full spectrum of 20 policy areas. WSPP is worse than no Platform at all (beyond the SoP), because it draws attention away from our principled stands for the rights of individuals. It makes us appear to be merely obsessive archo-phobes who think that the map most useful for reaching a destination is one in which you’ve cut out all the streets that aren’t one-way and pointed straight at the destination.
Knapp) I’m unaware of any case in which government discrimination makes government smaller. (Knapp
That’s what you get for not drinking the Rothbardian kool-aid. I quote the 2004 Platform: “We oppose adding women to the pool of those eligible for and subject to the draft, not because we think that as a rule women are unfit for combat, but because we believe that this step enlarges the number of people subjected to government tyranny. [...] We oppose any and all increases in the categories of taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions or credits in the spurious name of ‘fairness’.” Anthony Gregory can educate you about the Rothbardian merits of excluding gay people from the employ of the evil military.
Knapp) The WSPP is designed to be attractive to anyone who wants smaller government. The GH draft is designed to be attractive to those people who want smaller government in particular areas for particular reasons. Which one is more “big tent?” (Knapp
I’ve consistently opposed efforts by the most exuberant moderates to water down the Platform (as with the “Short A”/”Short B” drafts), and I’ll oppose such efforts even when they come from inclusivist radicals like you or Chuck Moulton. The point of a Platform is not to say the least that our natural constituents can agree with; it’s to comprehensively state what our natural constituents should agree with. It’s just not tenable to claim that the WSPP constitutes a “list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics”.
Knapp) The more free variables, the less ground available for agreement, said the radical ideologue to the pragmatic reformer. (Knapp
If you really believed that big-tentism was the determining virtue for a Platform, you would relax the WSPP’s absolutist monotonicity requirement. But you don’t believe that, and I don’t either. (Chuck Moulton does, and that’s why he likes the WSPP, and has never liked the GH.)
Matt, you’re wise to distance yourself from the possible rejoinder that being subpoenaed is ruled out by the 13th Amendment’s proscription against slavery. That’s an even sillier argument than the one that taxation is slavery. If everything is slavery, then nothing is slavery.
Tom Blanton, the Platform is not a statement of the rights of Americans. It’s a statement of the rights of all individuals. The next part of your 2004 Platform you need to study is the part where it says “Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime”.
Your point about “agencies” is lame. If occupational licensure is enforced by an agency with broad responsibilities, it remains clumsy and unwise for the Platform to call for the abolition of the “agency” enforcing the bad rules, rather than the bad rules themselves. You’re right that you’re merely quibbling, and on your criteria of clarity and lack of redundancy, the GH is an obvious winner over anything remotely resembling the verbal diarrhea of the 60-page 2004 Platform.
Morey, I already corrected you on LibertarianIntelligence that Moulton has never liked the GH draft. Care to make a bet on what the PlatCom will endorse?
Michael, we on the PlatCom’s Directional Principles subcommittee are always interested in specific suggestions for improving the GH draft. Can you be more specific? Note that “supporting” our principles is outside the scope of the GH. Its stated purpose is just to declare how our principles apply to the issues, and to omit issue descriptions, philosophical justifications, vouching for efficacy, and other forms of marketing. As for the Declaration of Independence, I’ll agree that the American experiment in liberty (contra the opinion of the LP’s anarchists) has been history’s best, and that a few of its most famous sentences would improve our SoP, but it’s style of listing complaints is not to be emulated in a statement of how our principles apply to the issues.
January 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
Let’s take on issue; healthcare. Most Americans are under the impression that we have a free market. Just ask any reporter and they’ll probably tell you that is true. You and I know that it is not, but that doesn’t get the message across to those we are trying to reach. As the saying goes; the devil is in the details.
To quote from the GH platform:” 2.8. Health care
We advocate the separation of medicine and State. We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care.”
How is that going to get the point across to anyone that there are numerous problems, that is historic barriers to competition, with healthcare? What about the impact of the McCarran-Ferguson Act? The control the AMA has? The certificates of need that are often required at the state level? The impact of the FDA,etc?
How about; “We advocate the separation of medicine and State. Throughout much of the world midwives are allowed to attend at childbirths, but because of state regualtions in America they were outlawed for years. Only recently have some of the laws been repealed. Today however, midwives attend about ten percent of childbirth in America, but in Europe they attend about 75% and do so at a lower cost than doctors and with a higher infant survival rate. We seek to expand the role of midwives and other medical providers by lifting barriers. Removal of these and other laws will benefit consumers and lower costs.”
Thats a quickie, but you need to put some meat on the bones and there’s a lot more where that came from.
MHW
January 1st, 2008 at 12:30 am
Another one: “We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
MW addition ( Today the U.S. taxpayer supports a miltary that is spread around the world to over 120 different countries, often defending the countries our workers compete against. To do so we borrow heavily from abroad. In essence we are sending our troops abroad to defend those we compete against, then often borrow from those same contries and tax the American worker to pay for it all.)
Much of this can be done with out all the transition statements, etc. that added to the previous documents.
State the goal, and give an example.
More later. Anyone else care to pitch in?
MHW
January 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Michael, I wouldn’t agree that 90% of the LP Platform plank about healthcare should be devoted to a discussion of midwiving. The Directional Principles / GH approach is to eschew examples and vouching and issue descriptions and philosophical justifications and other marketing, and stick to pronouncements of our shared core principles. Our shared core principles don’t include anything about the AMA or the McCarran-Ferguson Act or other Capitalized Things.
There are already plenty of libertarian white papers about healthcare; I cite several in the long-format healthcare plank I submitted to LNC in my PlatCom application: http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Healthcare_Plank . I agree that the GH will not succeed in convincing non-libertarians to support the LP’s position on healthcare, but we supporters of the directional principles approach—both moderates like me and radicals like Henry Haller—insist that that is not the Platform’s purpose. For some reasons why, see http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Legislative_Program .
Your language about non-interventionism suggests principles that are already covered in 3.3: “The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations. American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense—against attack from abroad—of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil.” Our timeless Libertarian principles certainly need not try to maintain a count of how many foreign countries host American military personnel—especially dubious counts like the one you cite. (Wikipedia’s Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military lists only 22 nations where more than 100 personnel are deployed; are you really that worried about our 3 people deployed to Norway?) This is similar to how the 2004 Platform was still talking about “the continuing high level of violent crime”, even though the rate of violent crime had dropped massively in the previous 10 years. Also, our approach is to not use novel language unless a principle simply cannot be enunciated using language from prior LP Platforms. And I would especially counsel against novel language that suggests free trade is zero-sum or worse for American workers; that plays into the hands of xenophobic statist politicians.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Brian I never said that 90% of the healthcare plank had to be about anything. I was just using a concrete example. I feel that concrete examples combined with other approachs, be they philosophical or otherwise is the best way to get the ideas across to many people who will read the platform. Especially since those people will come from a cross section of the public.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
MHW